Yeah, Cheerskep catches me in one of my many typo-syntax errors. I meant to say that "some viewers are LESS sophisticated than others...." This is what happens sometimes when you write quickly, composing sentences as you go, not looking back.
Cheerskep can say that a word is the occasion for notions but what is an occasion if not a sign and what is a sign if not a stand-in and what is a stand-in if not an imitation (however metaphorical) and what is an imitation if not a correspondence of some sort with something else? Otherwise I completely agree with him about something, I'm sure. WC --- On Wed, 10/8/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 10:56 AM > William, I think you have me wrong when you write: > > " Miller is an advocate of the correspondence school > of thought in art, as is > Cheerskep with respect to "notions". If > something does not look-like some > other absent but known thing, it is blank, nothing, > muddled, or false." > > My efforts on our forum are repeatedly and aptly humbling > as I see my > failures to convey serviceably various notions I have in > mind. But I have to temper > my sense of inadequacy occasionally. You put the general > reason nicely when you > write: > > "Some viewers are more sophisticated than others. They > don't pay attention to > anything that falls beyond their capacities." > > I feel I what I've written over time on the forum > should be adequate to show > any alert reader that I'm not an advocate of any > "correspondence school of > thought" -- none that I know of anyway -- in art or > anything else. This is > especially so when I've insisted that words (and > pictures, gestures, etc) do not > "refer, signify, denote, "pick out", or > "mean" anything. They are solely the > occasion for notions. > The principal source of those notions is the associations > that arise in the > minds of contemplators, supplemented by the products of > processing mental > apparatus. Those of us brought up in similar communities > will have acquired many > associations common to all of us. > > The standard correspondence theories of "truth" > and "meaning" assume that, > say, for any noun there is an object to which the noun has > a "connection" of > some sort called "correspondence". It's > exactly this sort of entity that I have > called chimerical. Nouns don't "mean", > "denote", "signify". There is no entity > that is either the action or the bond implied by those > verbs. I have no > illusions I've said everything that that might be said > on the subject, but I am > non-humble enough to claim I have adequately conveyed I am > not an advocate of any > "correspondence", and I think all theories of > such alleged correspondence are > false. > > > > ************** > New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your > destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! > > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
